I recently reached legendary rank for the first time, but I've got no idea how it compares to the ranking system of other games. In games like league of legends it's way easier to find stats about what percentile of players reaches each rank, which enchances the feeling of competetivness. In Hearthstone on the other hand, due to the system that prevents you from falling from promotiooal rank floor it feels as if ranking up to legend is a matter of spamming games instead of actually having any skills whatsoever. Does anyone here perhaps have any stats to how rank distribution works in here? I'd like to be happy about reaching the highest rank in hearthstone but if feels like even a bot could reach legend if it played enough games tbh
Well I get the point, but considering your answer anything below legend isn't even considered competetive hearthstone. I'd like to at least know what percentile of players evenreaches legend rank
Well I get the point, but considering your answer anything below legend isn't even considered competetive hearthstone. I'd like to at least know what percentile of players evenreaches legend rank
There are stats out there somewhere. I would look into the leaderboards from previous months to get an idea.
D3 to d1 is way more competetive then legend XXXXX-5k.
At 5k+ some ppl actually try to climb and at 2k+ it gets serious.
I also got no real numbers and eu is different then us. Here we have around 20k-50k hitting legend each month probably its closer to 50k cuz it gets easier with each year lol.
I doubt that there are more then 1kk ppl that you could consider as serious Standard Player.
The playberbase is definitly higher but the question is how many are actually playing the game and not just fooling around.
D3 to d1 is way more competetive then legend XXXXX-5k.
At 5k+ some ppl actually try to climb and at 2k+ it gets serious.
I also got no real numbers and eu is different then us. Here we have around 20k-50k hitting legend each month probably its closer to 50k cuz it gets easier with each year lol.
I doubt that there are more then 1kk ppl that you could consider as serious Standard Player.
The playberbase is definitly higher but the question is how many are actually playing the game and not just fooling around.
I can definitely see what you're saying, compared to low legend diamond feels increadibly competetive in comperison. My first game in legend (yesterday) was a curse warlock mirror match. People are actually trying out fun decks instead of being a meta slave as they are in diamond. I wish blizzard was more honest when it comes to numbers because climbing in HS feels much more anticlimatic then other online games
I can definitely see what you're saying, compared to low legend diamond feels increadibly competetive in comperison. My first game in legend (yesterday) was a curse warlock mirror match. People are actually trying out fun decks instead of being a meta slave as they are in diamond. I wish blizzard was more honest when it comes to numbers because climbing in HS feels much more anticlimatic then other online games
This reads as if you were just looking for confirmation.
Of course are the last few ranks before legend the more competitive as there is no more star bonus that boosts players to this rank. So players need to put in effort. Of course will your first game in legend late in the month be at low legend rank where players fool around just like in low ranks. This has nothing to do with being a "meta slave" or creative originality.
Also do you mean being open with numbers? Because Blizz can't be dishonest if they don't publish numbers in the first place. If you want to climb and play on a competitive level, reach legend earlier and go for top 1k or even higher. All other ranks are probably just fluff.
And yes, bots probably reach legend. All it takes is a winrate of just above 50% and enough games.
By ''honest with numbers'' I mean that blizzard doesn't really share any information about the player base or popularity of each modes. What I'm getting from people in this thread so far is that ranks, with exeption of high legend does not really reflect players skill. I don't know if its just a hearthstone thing or all card games have the same issue with their ranking system, but going up in ranks just does not feel satisfying at all in this game. It's more like a chore to get a few packs and keep your star bonus. Idk i made this thread because im really confused with this system
I'm looking for what proportion of players reach legend, but your stats are quite helpful. They show how much more popular standard format is in comparison
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I recently reached legendary rank for the first time, but I've got no idea how it compares to the ranking system of other games. In games like league of legends it's way easier to find stats about what percentile of players reaches each rank, which enchances the feeling of competetivness. In Hearthstone on the other hand, due to the system that prevents you from falling from promotiooal rank floor it feels as if ranking up to legend is a matter of spamming games instead of actually having any skills whatsoever. Does anyone here perhaps have any stats to how rank distribution works in here? I'd like to be happy about reaching the highest rank in hearthstone but if feels like even a bot could reach legend if it played enough games tbh
Win games get a lower legend rank number?
Well I get the point, but considering your answer anything below legend isn't even considered competetive hearthstone. I'd like to at least know what percentile of players evenreaches legend rank
There are stats out there somewhere. I would look into the leaderboards from previous months to get an idea.
D3 to d1 is way more competetive then legend XXXXX-5k.
At 5k+ some ppl actually try to climb and at 2k+ it gets serious.
I also got no real numbers and eu is different then us. Here we have around 20k-50k hitting legend each month probably its closer to 50k cuz it gets easier with each year lol.
I doubt that there are more then 1kk ppl that you could consider as serious Standard Player.
The playberbase is definitly higher but the question is how many are actually playing the game and not just fooling around.
I can definitely see what you're saying, compared to low legend diamond feels increadibly competetive in comperison. My first game in legend (yesterday) was a curse warlock mirror match. People are actually trying out fun decks instead of being a meta slave as they are in diamond. I wish blizzard was more honest when it comes to numbers because climbing in HS feels much more anticlimatic then other online games
This reads as if you were just looking for confirmation.
Of course are the last few ranks before legend the more competitive as there is no more star bonus that boosts players to this rank. So players need to put in effort.
Of course will your first game in legend late in the month be at low legend rank where players fool around just like in low ranks.
This has nothing to do with being a "meta slave" or creative originality.
Also do you mean being open with numbers? Because Blizz can't be dishonest if they don't publish numbers in the first place. If you want to climb and play on a competitive level, reach legend earlier and go for top 1k or even higher. All other ranks are probably just fluff.
And yes, bots probably reach legend. All it takes is a winrate of just above 50% and enough games.
By ''honest with numbers'' I mean that blizzard doesn't really share any information about the player base or popularity of each modes. What I'm getting from people in this thread so far is that ranks, with exeption of high legend does not really reflect players skill. I don't know if its just a hearthstone thing or all card games have the same issue with their ranking system, but going up in ranks just does not feel satisfying at all in this game. It's more like a chore to get a few packs and keep your star bonus. Idk i made this thread because im really confused with this system
There's your problem,
if games played can equate to high WR
then of what use is the metric?
DJ
I'm looking for what proportion of players reach legend, but your stats are quite helpful. They show how much more popular standard format is in comparison